Russel Brand: The time for Revolution is now.

benrl

Russel Brand speaking about the current system, while I believe we can still use it to in act change and disagree with some of what he says It is a very interesting video.

He certainly is an extremely intelligent man who plays the fool, you can see it in the interview where he drops the character and gets serious.

Reminds me of what happens when ever pundits interview John Stewart and he tears them apart, it takes great intelligence to do comedy, and these reporters underestimate comedians constantly.

I've watched this video twice now trying to see what the OP is professing that this is an intelligent discussion and is able to persuade anyone that a 'revolution' is going to happen.

All I can retrieve from this interview is a rant by an overrated actor and comedian who has never voted for anything in his life, and is using this 8 minutes of air time to simply hypocritically ridicule his whole life up until this moment.

He is advocating socialism. Let him go live in a Socialistic run country for a year without all the freedoms he has now and then come back and tell us about the 'revolution' , 'change' that is coming. Sounds like "The Who" all over again, "same as the old boss".

I just don't like Russell Brand at all and never have, especially when he disrespected a fathers daughter just for a laugh.

Ofcom today fined the BBC £150,000 over the "Sachsgate" row, describing the Radio 2 broadcast of messages left by Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand on actor Andrew Sachs's voicemail as "gratuitously offensive, humiliating and demeaning".

The watchdog said the scale of the fine reflected the "extraordinary nature and seriousness" of the BBC's failures and the resulting breaches of the broadcasting code.

Ofcom said the corporation had broadcast "explicit, intimate and confidential information" about Sachs's granddaughter, Georgina Baillie, without her consent in Brand's Radio 2 programmes that aired on 18 October and 25 October last year.

"This not only unwarrantably and seriously infringed their privacy but was also gratuitously offensive, humiliating and demeaning," Ofcom said.

The media regulator said it had imposed a fine of £70,000 for breaches of the broadcasting code on standards and over the Radio 2 broadcast of offensive material, and a further £80,000 for the unwarranted infringement of Sachs's and Baillie's privacy.

Ofcom said that despite the BBC considering Brand's show to be "high risk", it had ceded responsibility for some of management of the programme to people working for the comedian. "The presenter's interests had been given greater priority than the BBC's responsibility to avoid unwarranted infringements of privacy and minimise the risk of harm and offence and to maintain generally accepted standards," today's Ofcom report said.

reply to post by TrueBrit


1. You have no idea who I am, or what I do, what I have done, or where i come from. So to state my position stems from a dislike of "the poor" is frankly ridiculous. it in fact stems from an inner need to sustain myself.

2. My position of refusal to pay into a system. or as you would have it, have it forceably taken away from me stems from knowing people and seeing them all my damn life who do NOT lift a damn finger. Why should they benefit from the labour of those gritty eyed weary LS Lowry type stereotypes you invoke.

3. Regarding success and working hard. Success comes from ensuring you are not just doing things right, but doing the right things. Brown-nosing doesn't come in to it. There are many examples through out the land of people who have come from nothing and gone on to live very comfortable lives. For example the father of our "Queen to be" was a flight dispatcher for British Airways. A job like the one you describe where someone can work and work, and never achieve anything other than a hand to mouth existence. he didn't settle, why should you.

4. However your love of the manual worker, and disdain for the office worker only demonstrates one thing. A skewed perception of what "work" is. Who do you think keeps company's going, which provides the jobs for your and your gritty, bleeding huddles masses of oppressed but hard working and proud folk. You have no concept of value generation, and that is what keeps business running,

5. In yours and Mr Brand vision, be prepared to have you family business ans assets seized for the good of the state. Are you prepared for that. Do not assume YOU will benefit. There is always someone poorer an in need of levelling out. For all you know that could be me. with that in mind, I am coming round your house tonight for dinner, which I will expect you to provide for me, and receive nothing but my thanks, and the gratitude of "the people" and i will be coming there every night, forever.

The government owe you nothing of the sort. if you have such disdain for them, stop looking to them to support you. Show some of the grit and determination you are so fond of and don't expect any help, but work for yourself. See point 3.

Stop feeling sorry for yourself. Remove the copy of Socialist Worker from between your arse cheeks, and realize that there IS a world of opportunity, but no one is going to hand it to you, and nor should that. it is your RESPONSIBILITY to yourself that should determine that.

I agree with you on the banks issue, they destroy value instead of creating it. However your vision destroys value at a greater level, as the "stuffed shirts" of the companies that do create value, provide gainful employment and opportunities for people to achieve levels of success will disappear in to a pseudo homogeneous bloc of nationalized behemoths presided over by,.... an elite few. The success I speak of is to live comfortably and to be able to do as you please when you please, and set goals for the future. For those that have accrued fortunes and lands etc etc etc. Well good for them. is it fair that they have so much while other have so little? perhaps not, but your mother should have taught you that life is not fair, and as stated it is up to you to make your way in the world, and this is not an excuse to implement something that will destroy the lives of the very same hard working people you love so much.

reply to post by JakiusFogg


The people I am talking about are not cartoon stereotypes, but real human beings. If you are the sort of person who can justify having much, when others have little to nothing despite their toil, then good for you. That lack of compassion will prevent you having much trouble sleeping I suppose.

reply to post by TrueBrit


Look up LS Lowry.

How about me having what I have because of my toil?? how about that?

As I said, don't work and work to do things right, work at doing the right things.

reply to post by TrueBrit

The people I am talking about are not cartoon stereotypes, but real human beings. If you are the sort of person who can justify having much, when others have little to nothing despite their toil, then good for you.

I didn't know I had to justify to society or others with less than I every little success I have. Sounds like mob tyranny to me.

That lack of compassion will prevent you having much trouble sleeping I suppose.

And not needing to justify ones position in life when success is found is simply being incompassionate?

reply to post by projectvxn


There is no tyranny without a tyrant.

And did I mention anything about little, contained successes? No. No I didn't. What I am talking about is giant and unsupportable pay packets offered to the least productive individuals in a company or infrastructure.

Oh and Jakius, I am a socialist, not a moron. I know full well who Lowry was thank you very much.

TrueBrit
reply to post by JakiusFogg

 

The people I am talking about are not cartoon stereotypes, but real human beings. If you are the sort of person who can justify having much, when others have little to nothing despite their toil, then good for you. That lack of compassion will prevent you having much trouble sleeping I suppose.

Wanting to use force to loot someones vault is not compassion. Its theft.

We have compassion for those less fortunate than us.

Focusing on why the fortunate have more than we is a vice: avarice, envy, greed.

Instead of redistributing wealth the answer is to create new wealth.

Focus on improving your own life, rather than finding ways to change everyone elses life to fit your paradigm.

reply to post by projectvxn


That's the way the UK is going these days. Sometimes makes me glad I moved to a developing country where people still value working for themselves, and understand that is the way to improve you situation. People in the UK have got too used to hand outs.

TrueBrit
reply to post by projectvxn

 

There is no tyranny without a tyrant.

And did I mention anything about little, contained successes? No. No I didn't. What I am talking about is giant and unsupportable pay packets offered to the least productive individuals in a company or infrastructure.

Oh and Jakius, I am a socialist, not a moron. I know full well who Lowry was thank you very much.

Partial working solution:

Boycott them.
Use Internet to spread message.

If people dont play along with the boycott, consider people actually want it this way.

TrueBrit
reply to post by JakiusFogg

 

The people I am talking about are not cartoon stereotypes, but real human beings. If you are the sort of person who can justify having much, when others have little to nothing despite their toil, then good for you. That lack of compassion will prevent you having much trouble sleeping I suppose.

Well, look at it this way. In the US, the fast food workers are trying to get us all to pay them $15/hour ... for flipping burgers at a grill. This is something that just about anyone can be taught to do in very little time from a very young age. There is an enormous pool of people who could potentially do this job.

When the US was a much different place, this job was one that high school kids did part-time in order to begin learning basic job schools and filling the lower levels of their resumes for more serious jobs later on. Now, people are trying to tell us that they should be allowed to make a living on this kind of job. Why? Because they made poor choices growing up. They didn't go to school or they screwed around at school and didn't get a basic education. Now, all they are fit for is flipping burgers, so they think they are entitled to be paid enough to live on. Instead of biting the bullet and getting a better skill set, they demand what they aren't worth be handed to them.

I make less than what they're demanding, and my job requires an education and skill. You could not drop any of those burger flippers into my job and expect any of them to succeed at it, but if they get what they want, will I get a subsequent raise to reflect the difference in value between what I do and what they do? No. Should I? No. My labor is only worth so much to the business who hires me, and if I got a raise of $4/hour more to keep ahead of $15/hour burger flippers, then I'd be threatening my husband, and there's no way what I do is anywhere near as complex as what he has to do. And so it goes on up the food chain.

Pretty soon, people will be wondering how anyone could ever be expected to make a living on just $15/hour was the cost of everything will shift to reflect this as the new floor wage.

reply to post by TrueBrit

There is no tyranny without a tyrant.

Ok, so when the mob shows up to your home and demands the fruits of your success, any at all, then it isn't tyranny because a figure head isn't standing there leading them?

I beg to differ.

And did I mention anything about little, contained successes? No. No I didn't. What I am talking about is giant and unsupportable pay packets offered to the least productive individuals in a company or infrastructure.

If you're talking about crooks at the top of corporate towers who get paid millions to topple the company then I agree.

But what are little and contained successes? Should we bar anyone from exceeding this metric?

Should we all strive for as little success as possible so as to not seem callous?

Finally watched this and catching up. He's right about a Revolution but wrong where to take it.
You can not redistribute wealth and prosper, and taxing the hell out of the rich is rediculous. Why would anyone even try to innovate and create when you can wait tables and live the same as a CEO, without the headaches. Why go for higher education when you can smoke pot and play X-Box all day and live like the next guy?
Im not one of the wealthy but I strive to achieve something because the possibility is there to prosper.
People seem to scream about tax breaks for the wealthy, and it always grinds on me. If I make 100k and pay 25k in taxes, person B makes 1 million and pays 390k in taxes, how is that fair? I pay 25,000 they pay 390,000 and then half the population pays nothing?!
We are getting screwed by the people not paying a dime and getting free food, daycare, housing..etc and live their entire life like that.
Then you have the insane spending of our Governments for their pet projects, wars, and all the other bureaucratic nonsense that pads their pockets.
I am for lending a helping hand, or paying my Representatives, but not a lifetime of support.
That's exactly what is happening and soon there will not be enough working people to support them.

reply to post by projectvxn


Of course not, but staggering successful people should not expect to retain for themselves the vast majority of their excessive loot, because to do so is only greed and nothing more!

Russel Brand: I have a strong sense that this point of view of his has everything to do with his devorce with Katty Perry.

I mean, who would let such a babe go for something else..

reply to post by TrueBrit

Of course not, but staggering successful people should not expect to retain for themselves the vast majority of their excessive loot, because to do so is only greed and nothing more!

Where does that slippery slope stop?

Too much bread in the pantry?

Too much gas in the tank?

You can't expect to keep what you earn? So you can't enjoy the fruits of your labor past a certain point..What is that point? By what metric do you define too much success?

TrueBrit
reply to post by projectvxn

 

Of course not, but staggering successful people should not expect to retain for themselves the vast majority of their excessive loot, because to do so is only greed and nothing more!

If you can't expect to retain or obtain any real reward for your success, why bother to succeed?

This is the fundamental problem inherent in socialist/communist societies aside from the privileged few who make all the decisions at the top. When you realize that the slacker down the line who barely makes his assigned quota gets all the same pay and raises/rewards as you why should you bust your butt and take any pride in your work? After all, if you slack as much as he does, you'll get the same.

This becomes endemic throughout the system. Human nature being what it is, people figure out how to get as much as they can while doing as little as they can in return. There is no incentive to get people to do more or better because they will never get ahead of the guy who does only the bare minimum with the bare minimum effort.

Eliminating gain through competition in the name of forced equality sets everyone up for failure.

Even hive insects have competition albeit competition between their hives and colonies.

reply to post by ketsuko


You ask, why should a person contribute to the best of their ability if they are only getting the same as someone who does a half assed job.

I ask, if you are getting the same, why not do the best you can, and challenge yourself? Why should achievement mean being placed upon a pedestal? For all you know, your colleague down the line might have been thinking up a great poem, or visualising a work of art he is working on, so who are you to judge?

reply to post by projectvxn


Well the best place to start would be, at the point where no human being could possibly spend the money in a lifetime, without foreshortening that lifetime in the attempt (by way of vast numbers of hookers, noses full of narcotics, and expensive super cars, not to mention booze, for example.

Billionaires... There is no way to EARN a billion dollars, or pounds.You can gain a billion dollars, but at no point is any one individual worth that, because all those individuals do, is horde that cash, give a little tiny bit to charity to make them feel better about themselves, and sit on the rest.

I would say, dependant on region and house prices, price of living, we could be talking about the seven hundred thousand pound mark. If you cannot live a life time on that, you need to take a hard look at yourself and wonder what the HELL is wrong with you, that you loose money like BP looses oil.

reply to post by TrueBrit


Try that in an athletic sense. If all athletes were held back to only be able to do so well because it is unfair for some to excel at a sport, why would any compete after a time?

And you argument about not judging the slacker because he might be the next Van Gogh? Really? If that were the excuse for every slacker, the world would be awash in world class art. But for the sake of argument let's say that's true. I'll bet you'd want the budding Van Gogh to be rewarded for his artistic talent. And yet, what about the Van Gogh of the assembly line? Why do you hate his prowess so much that you'd kneecap him for working harder than his fellows and succeeding?